Losing
 

We need:

1. A new head coach who knows more about winning and getting his players ready than he does about excuses and \"locker room cancers.\"

2. An offensive coordinator with a little imagination. Someone who understands that against SOME teams, you run to setup to pass, and against others, YOU DO THE OPPOSITE.

3. A defensive coordinator who is a defensive coordinator, not just some guy who has been around forever and NEVER been on a winning team as a coordinator or head coach other than last year\'s team (and that winning record obviously had NOTHING to do with our defense last year).

4. A GM who knows anything about players and talent. What has that bean-counter done? Managed to somehow give us the highest payroll in the league. Oh, and what did he do with the 5th most money available under that cap last offseason? Brought us such greats as: Ruff, Rodgers, Ambrose, Sullivan, Conwell, Stinchomb, and a whole slew of other players that never saw the field... oh, and let\'s not forget Tsucky. Yeah, some great GM that guy is.

5. A middle linebacker who knows how to play middle linebacker. The kind of guy who can at least effect a play every once in a while, if not control the middle.

6. A true shutdown corner. The kind of guy NO has never had. Someone who dares you to throw his way and then makes you pay if you do.

7. An outside linebacker who isn\'t named Allen, Hodge, or Smith. (Rodgers is OK)

8. A dominant left tackle (move Gandy to the right).

9. A big play receiver (No stallworth doesn\'t count - you have to be on the field to make plays).

10. A healthy viable backup RB.

11. If all of the above, then a little luck and the Lombardi trophy we will deserve.

Losing
 

Well, I\'m just so agreeable today.

This post seems exactly right to me. I feel stupid for giving up on my thesis that the run-defense was our biggest problem. I guess I got too excited when they played well a game or two in a row.

I\'ll tell you what though - Sammy Knight may have got beat deep a few (ha ha) times, but he was a ball hawk, and he could definitely stop the run. I think that was a huge loss. Not that Bellamy wasn\'t great this year, but the loss of Knight I think played a big role in the demise of our already poor run defense. It didn\'t matter that our corners were average (no offense to Fred) this year, since no one had to pass.

So, I think we need two run stuffers (get us Al Wilson!) and a freakin\' shut down corner BECAUSE the second we stop the run, they\'re gonna shred our secondary.

Losing
 

Don\'t say that! Why did you say that? Here comes the Lunch Bunch Part II! ;)

Losing
 

Funny thing is, we need a fatass next to Sullivan that only has one job- rock forward when the ball is snapped- that\'s all. Surely there are some available.

Losing
 

Yikes! I\'m sorry to say that I did say that - but I didn\'t realize that entailed the Heavy Lunch Bunch II! That\'s worse than Jason vs Freddie.

Let me rephrase, though I did enjoy a laugh over this one: two run stuffers who are not both near 320 lbs a peice. What I acutally had in mind is an OLB or MLB plus a DLman who isn\'t simply built for rushing (though, it would be nice if he could do that too :) )

Losing
 

After 34 years of popping Rolaids and Tylenol pulling for the Saints I thought I had seen it all, but the Saints seem to find new ways to snatch your heart out and stomp it flat. Yesterday has topped it all. A one in a million play that was sucessful only to be ruined by a missed extra point!!!! I never get used to losing I just get numb. Am I ready to jump ship? No, just call me a glutton for punishment, I\'ll still be here pulling for em again next year. I don\'t know why but I will. And Although a win yesterday wouldn\'t have secured a playoff spot it would have been nice to see something positive.
Its for some major changes, we certainly don\'t want to be going through the same stuff a year from now!

[Edited on 22/12/2003 by jm]

Losing
 

This loss hurt, but not nearly as bad as some have. It was a meaningless game, really. I wish we would have won it, but in the end, we still weren\'t going to the playoffs.

But, you are right. This team finds all different kinds of ways to lose. Who would have thought that Deuce would be most responsible for losing the game for us? It\'s just not fair to Deuce. So what Deuce lost 2-fumbles when no one hit him. I know that the Jags scored 1-TD off one of his fumbles and the other one killed a good drive. I\'m still not going to fault Decue though. Deuce more than made up for losing us the game yesterday with the way he has played this year. Don\'t let the critcism get to you Deuce...

[Edited on 23/12/2003 by BillyC]

Losing
 

Billy prior to the loss did we know we werent\' going to the playoffs? It was far from meaningless.

[Edited on 23/12/2003 by subguy]

Losing
 

OK, so the game might COULD have had some meaning. But, I don\'t want anyone blaming Deuce for the loss. I know how hard members criticised Brooks for fumbling the game away in Tampa. Deuce can\'t be criticised for the samething, because Deuce only lost 2 fumbles and not 3 like Brooks. Now, if Deuce had of lost 3 fumbles, then I would blame him for the loss like Brooks got balmed. I\'ll take up for you Deuce, I know the Deuce bashers will be out soon.........



[Edited on 23/12/2003 by BillyC]

Losing
 

Billy, it doesn\'t look like anyone has taken the bait here.

However, here is a possible reply: Duece has done more than his part this year (and IS a pro bolwer). Thus, this is actually \"just a bad game\" for him; I think the stats will attest to that. Your critic will say this: Brooks on the other hand has been INCONSISTANT (whatever that means) all year, so his fumbles are just a part of that trend (such as it is). Therefore, there is no comparison - thus, Duece takes no blame for this game (especially since Carney is available for that), whereas Br :cool: :cool: ks does for his fumble game.

Please pardon all spelling errors tonight. I\'ve got to say, I\'m pretty tired.

Losing
 

Duece has 6 fumbles this season

Brooks has 14 fumbles this season

Duece runs into the heart of the opposing defense .

Brooks just has it come out of his hand when he passes . ;)

Losing
 

I was that transparent huh? I just can\'t get anything over on you guys. I\'ll work on that. ;)

Deuce is one of my favorite players and is a great running back. I don\'t put the blame on Deuce for losing the game. Very rarely will you ever hear me blame ONE player for losing a game. I think blaming one player for a loss is very short-sighted. I wouldn\'t even try to pin the loss on John Carney. Carney never had the chance to win the game for us. Now, he had the chance to TIE the game for us, but who\'s to say we would have won in overtime?

Football really is a team game. So much individual success is dependent on the other 10 players on the field. Sometimes a special palyer comes along like a Barry Sanders or a Mick Vick that is able to make plays on their on, but for the most part ,players don\'t make plays on their own.

Anyway, if Brooks would have fumbled the ball aganst the Jags, we would have had an influx of folks on this board screaming for the guys head. They would have been here showing how Brooks fumble led to 7-ponts for the Jags and how the other fumble took at least 3-points off the board for us. Then the would add up 7 plus 3 and tell me that Brooks cost us 10-points. Then they would say that we only lost by 7 points and if not for the 10-points that Brooks cost us that we would have won the game. Then -- they would have told me that Brooks couldn\'t win a game when we needed him the most. Get the message? It\'s double standards if you ask me.

Speaking of double standards. It\'s been said that Brooks can\'t come though against good defenses. Well, in every game this year that Deuce has gone up against a top defense he has been shut down. Yet, it\'s ok for Deuce becuase it\'s the offensive line\'s fault. But, let Brooks have a below average day and it\'s ALL Brooks fault. Forget the fact that the offensive line didn\'t pass block worth a crap all day of the fact the receivers dropped the ball all day.

In this very confusing season, there is really only one conclusion that I have come to, and that is we have all these great individual players that don\'t play as a TEAM. I don\'t see anyway to fix this problem by bringing in other players. The only way I see to correct the problem is to bring in a person to get the players to play as a team. I think there is a name for such a person. It\'s on the tip end of my tounge, but I just can\'t think of it. Oh, yeah..............they call that guy a head coach. Let\'s get on of those.

Losing
 

This whole thread was Brooks free until this Guy Billy C found a way to bring up the name of Brooks. What gives Bill, do you have pics of him on your night stand and do you wear his jersey to work or do you sleep in it? Brooks, Brooks, Brooks, Brooks, Brooks. Do you dream of him too? The saints lost as a team and are out of the playoffs as a team. And no I wouldn\'t blame the lost on Deuce, for the most part he has carried his weight the whole season when others didn\'t. As far as Brooks goes, he is an average Quarterback, yes I know you can use all of his outstanding stats but the one glaring stat that he has shown over a 3 year period is 7-9, 9-7, and a possible 8-8 thats and average of 8-8 with him as team leader. 500 is average. Happy Holidays!!!!

Losing
 

jm --

I believe you are mistaken. It was not me that brought up Brooks. I was responding to someone else that brought Brooks up.

Losing
 

I keep looking for the person that brought up Brooks before you mentioned him, Billy, but I can\'t find the post. Maybe I\'m lazy...

Losing
 

Your agenda is exposed Billy .

Losing
 

Looks like I am mistaken. I hate when I\'m wrong. I have been exposed !! Regardless, I can\'t help if I\'m on a board of Brook\'s haters. Rest assured they would bring up ANYTHING against Brooks when he makes mistakes. Looks like I\'ll be the only one to bring up the good stuff. Oh well.............So be it!!

Now back to the \"Brooks is God\" website.....................

Losing
 

It\'s unfortunate, he had the best season of his career, only to have that shadowed by all the dumb fumbles he made.

Losing
 

Some do not hate him , some just think he looks a lot like

3,855 Jim Everett, 1994 (540 att.- 346 comp.)
3,832 Aaron Brooks, 2001 (558 att.-312 comp.)

Or should we say Chris ..... :P

Losing
 

It\'s nice to have folks that are unbiased. Obviously, I\'m pro Brooks and then we have all the anti-Brooks crowd. I enjoy reading everyone\'s opinions, but there are some like B&B, LummOx, Danno, saint5221, (and I\'m sure there a couple more) that call it like they see it. I don\'t always agree with those guys on everything, but they tell it like it is, without any agenda. Oh, yeah, WhoDat does a nice job, but he doesn\'t like to be wrong(like me) and get\'s off the beaten path sometimes.... ;)

Losing
 

08 -- I\'ve even come to respect your opinion on some things. But, Brooks aint\' one of \'em. I consider you to be the ring leader of the Brooks haters... ;)

I\'m aware of Jim Everett\'s career. You can compare Brooks to Everette if ya want, but just never compare him to Jake Delhomme. :D

Losing
 

Aaron brooks first year rating 76.4

Jake Delhomme first year rating 80.5

I see your point Billy ............ ;)

[Edited on 23/12/2003 by saintz08]

Losing
 

Jake has thown only 2 more TD\'s than In\'ts so far. His interceptions may catch up to his TD\'s next week. ;)

Losing
 

Thank You. I\'m glad to offer a balanced view.

Again, thank you, I just try to comment on things as they are. I do think LummOx offers the most baseline viewpoint though.

Losing
 

Quarterbacks Daunte Culpepper of Minnesota, Jake Delhomme of Caroloina, Brett Favre of Green Bay and Steve McNair of Tennessee are the finalists for FedEx Express NFL Player of the Week honors for games played on December 21-22.

Pretty good company for the month of December ......... ;)

Biggest stat

Delhomme - Play offs
Brooks - Not ..... :o

Losing
 

Here\'s a better stat for you 08 :

Jake Delhomme -- Playoffs
Deuce McAllister -- Not


Individual award:
Aaron Brooks -- Pro Bowl Alternate
Jake Delhomme -- NOT

You\'re at the plate 08, bottom of the 9th, 3 balls and 2 strikes. Don\'t miss!!! :P


BMG -- You\'re welcome man. We actually see a lot of things alike. Soon as you lose your hate for Brooks, we\'ll be like 2 peas in a pod. -- :P

Losing
 

The Pro Bowl , a game played that bases it\'s players on stats and popularity .

That pitch was slow and over the plate .
The swing is true and the ball is out of the park .

What did he hit that weak pitch with ???

Duece\'s own words :

\"My biggest concern is wins and loses. Until then, the records don\'t mean anything. What matter is getting in the playoffs and winning the Super Bowl. Until you do that, it doesn\'t matter how many records you hold.\"

Let\'s go to the replay .

What matter is getting in the playoffs and winning the Super Bowl. Until you do that, it doesn\'t matter how many records you hold.\"

Losing
 

The only stat that counts is wins and losses

currently as a starter for the Saints Brooks is 27 - 27 including the playoff win. I don\'t know what Bobby Hebert or Jeff Blakes win losses as a starter are, perhaps someone could shed some light on the subject.

Just presenting the facts !

Losing
 

Not sure about Hebert, but Blake in his only year as the Saints starter went 7-4 before going down with the injury that led to his demise. Brooks then went 4-3 the rest of the season (including the 2 playoff games that year). Does anyone ever wonder what could\'ve been if Jeff Blake hadn\'t been screwed out of his starting job? Not that I\'m bashing Brooks, but he was handed the starting job on a silver platter that belonged to someone else.

Losing
 

I was under the impression that they gave the job based on Brooks play when he came in for an injuried Jeff Blake. Players lose their job all the time like that. Boo Williams is likely to be our starting tightend next year. That\'s the way the cookie crumbles.......

[Edited on 24/12/2003 by BillyC]

Losing
 

What exactly was wrong with Blake\'s play that cost his his job? Absolutely nothing. His winning percentage was higher than Brooks. Yes, Brooks played well subbing for Blake, but losing his job to an injury was asanine. If he\'d played poorly, it would\'ve been a bit more understandable, but it wouldn\'t have allowed you to praise a man with a 27-27 record as our fearless leader. :casstet:

Losing
 

When will you people quit talking about win/loss record as if the QB is responsible for these? This game of football is played by an offense, defense, and special teams. This isn\'t tennis or golf. Geeeezzz.

[Edited on 24/12/2003 by BillyC]

Losing
 

The quarterback earns his leadership role, menatally, by:
flawlessly knowing every responsibility of every position for every play
knowing the key for every play
being able to read a defensive scheme
being always mentally tough- ngunngu: never give up, never never give up

The quarterback earns his leadership role, emotionally, by:
balancing the emotional bank account
staying steady- never get too high on the highs or too low on the lows
investing time and being there for your teammates

Responsibilities of Success
QB is responsible for every play- see it to success

QB gets too much credit for the good things- be humble

QB gets too much blame for the bad things- shake it off

QB is in command of offensive production- job is to score points


Attributes of a QB
desire to lead

charisma of a leader

competetiveness

the will to succeed

be honest in decisions

openness to learning

enthusiasm

risk taker

playmaker

Losing
 

Maybe George Patton could be our quarterback next year.

Losing
 

Trent Dilfer - Won a superbowl
Jeff Hostetler - Won a superbowl

Dan Marino - Never won a superbowl
Archie Manning - Never won a superbowl
Fran Tarkenton - Never won a superbowl

Trent Dilfer- Better than Marino, Manning, and Tarkenton
Jeff Hostettler - Better than Marino, Manning, and Tarkenton

Hmmm, no problem with those statements huh?

Losing
 

I\'m convinced when someone makes a ridiculous statement like comparing 2 quarterback\'s win/loss records and tries to demonstrate how one QB is better than the other, you must not retaliate with \"common sense.\" You cannot win an arguement like that. All you can hope to do is make a more ridiculous statement and hope they will understand that kind of reasoning. I feel since thier brain thinks like that anyway, you might have a chance of getting through to them. In any case...............DO NOT TRY TO REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE...........lol

I\"m just kidding people. Settle down.


[Edited on 25/12/2003 by BillyC]

[Edited on 25/12/2003 by BillyC]